Star Trek RPG 004-A

[Cochrane]

Fasa was 001-A, TNG was 002-A, TOS was 002-B, DS9 was 002-C, Coda was 003-A. Anything before Fasa was NX-somethingorother. Or something like that, you get the idea.

Anyway, this thread is for speculation on the next TrekRPG, whenever that may be. When will it be? Four years from now (shortly after the next series begins)? 10 years from now (when the next series ends)? Shortly before the next series begins (as a forerunner that the whole world will surely know about )? 2063?

I'd suggest we forget about the system/ mechanics for the purpose of this thread. What products (seriously, not my Nickelodeon jokes) should we expect? A TCW Sourcebook? A Xindi Expanse Sourcebook? A 22nd Century Sourcebook? A 30th Century Sourcebook? A Birth of the Federation Sourcebook? A Federation Core Region Sourcebook? A Kazon/ Ocampa/ Talax/ Trabe/ Vidiia/ Haakonia Region Sourcebook? A Romulan War Sourcebook? A Eugenics Sourcebook?

[Phoenix]

007

Bond, James Bond...

Couldn't help my self. My game is, after all, on the U.S.S. (Ian Lancaster) Fleming. Where the PC's have dubed the 3 shuttle craft M, Q, & R; the Captain's Yatch is officially named "Money Penney"; and the computer is known as "Tracy" (Bond's only true love, and for a very short time: wife).

[spshu]

Well, now that Decipher does not have the Star Trek license anymore, it seems like this discussion is more relevant.

For profitability, the next RPG company that gets the license will have to use some sort of pre-existing system so as to cut out the playtesting costs and time. An existing in house system, an open license system (d20 , Action System, True20, Open Core, etc.) an easily license system (d6, Fuzion) would be their choices. If the new company could purchase or license a previous Star Trek system: FASA, Icon or Coda that would be great as it would make it easier to find existing players. That happening with Icon or Coda would be slim to none. The new company could just create Coda & Icon compatible products to begin with.

[Mazza]

Creating CODA and Icon compatible products sounds like a legal landmine waiting to be stumbled into.

I disagree that the next RPG company who gets the license will need to use a pre-existing system for profitability. I think that using a pre-existing system is more of a risk, from a business perspective, than anything else. The Star Trek name is what will sell the RPG - using a known system can only cost you customers (e.g. your yuck at d20). I think that whatever system they went with there would still be a lot of playtesting involved, and I don't think that the need for it is necessarily significantly reduced by using an existing system. Existing systems are not, for instance, going to include rules for starships. Even existing systems which do have such rules (e.g. GURPS) would require significant tweaking to make the systems Trek-specific.

The biggest thing which will determine the profitability of the next Star Trek RPG will be the cost of the Trek license in the first place, and how many players of older Star Trek RPGs can be lured to switch to the new system.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I, for one, enjoyed the idea behind Decipher's sourcebook schedule. What they lacked in specific innovative detail* they made up for in applicability; LUG sourcebooks often had problems when offering advice on integrating material into ongoing campaigns, especially The First Line, which was all about an espionage series.

That said, some of LUG's material was genius, especially the show-specific material in the DS9 and TOS core books; the rest of the TOS line was also awesome, but I'm sure I mentioned that before.

We could probably look forward to a release schedule like SAGA SW. Core book, occasional wide-ranging toolkit books (Ships, Aliens) and most of the company's effort put into a collectible spaceship combat game : P

What I would especially like is a regular schedule of free released adventures, like WotC's Dungeon material. Adventures are problematic to publish because market for them is immediately cut to a quarter or one fifth of any other book. They're just as important, though, in getting people into the game and helping the average gamemaster running a campaign. Most of the people here probably don't need them, but that's because we're dedicated, creative folks who're willing to put energy into a gameline that's died, like, three times : P

*because, for the most part, it was covering material seen onscreen, rather than filling in gaps. You could probably see the first four sourcebooks as an extended core rulebook.

[Mazza]

Wizards' Star Wars RPG line has not, historically, been much better supported than CODA Trek was. Let's hope for the sake of SAGA players that things are different this time around.

Personally, when I want a game about starship combat, I'll use Federation Commander. I don't want the next Trek RPG to be no better supported in terms of new RPG material than Star Wars, but with a half-arsed collectible starship game tacked on.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Wizards' Star Wars RPG line has not, historically, been much better supported than CODA Trek was. Let's hope for the sake of SAGA players that things are different this time around.

Well, historically, that's because the license was restricted by a limited release schedule. If they weren't juggling book earnings versus minis earnings, there'd probably be more supplements coming out of the tube.

However, I think forcing the company to think of books that are essential, continuous sellers instead of disposable monthly supplements will be better in the long run for the game. Assuming they don't pull a Starships.

Personally, when I want a game about starship combat, I'll use Federation Commander. I don't want the next Trek RPG to be no better supported in terms of new RPG material than Star Wars, but with a half-arsed collectible starship game tacked on.

Sure, but is it financially successful? Do you think a 'traditional' painting-and-huge-rules minis game will be seen as a profitable venture these days, no matter how many asses go into producing it?

[tonyg]

I think the reasons for the ppor support and to some extent the failure of the TREK rpg lines actually hard back to the WotC buyout of LUG.

If you look at all the things people were worried about, they eventually happened.

The state of Star Trek RPGs has been suck city since then. ICON got killed off for CODA, which in turn got tossed into limbo, with virtually everyone associated with it's creation getting disgusted and calling it quits.

I think the major problem with Trek as an RPG is that it doesn't appeal to most gamers, pure and simple.

A new system, or using an pre-exsisting one doesn't matter. Unless you want to see Star Trek: THe Dungeoncrawlers, a Sci-Fi game of personal combat having little to do with Star Trek as we know it.


I'm sure we could see lots of supplments if the game sold. Grreed is a great motivator. If Decipher has theen the D&D challenging sales fogure they had expected, I'm sure we'd be hip deep in supplments by now.

Or you can hope Mongoose gets it. THe rules would probably suck, the game would need to be corrected with a new edtion, but I'm sure they would support it.

[Silverstreak]

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

2d6, xd6 pools and percentile dice are horrible?

[C5]

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

Some used to say that CODA dice system was "D20 with 2D6". I tend to agree that CODA dice system is similar to D20, but the probability curve is different.

As for the character creation system, I have to admit from personal experience that ICON and CODA (don't know about FASA) creation systems are not the easiest to grasp... Took my players a few hours at the time, though I guess it can be easier with use.

[Silverstreak]

2d6, xd6 pools and percentile dice are horrible?

Yes, the D20 system allows for a greater range of probabilities. The problem with ICON (for example) was you either did things extremely well or you failed horribly due to the drama die. It's character creation system, while not difficult took hours to make characters who were senior staff.

CODA, talk about confusing, it's character creation system didn't allow command level officers to be skilled enough. Never mind it was another D6 system.

Hell, even White Wolf's World of Darkness D10 system would have been better.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Yes, the D20 system allows for a greater range of probabilities.

If by "possibilities" you mean "numerical results."

CODA, talk about confusing, it's character creation system didn't allow command level officers to be skilled enough. Never mind it was another D6 system.

How do you mean? How many advancements are we talking about here?

Hell, even White Wolf's World of Darkness D10 system would have been better.

technically, it's a Xd10 system.

[Silverstreak]

If by "possibilities" you mean "numerical results."

Both character wise and dice wise. With D20 you could have a multitude of Prestige Classes and a very wide range of numerical probabilities. To me, that makes for a better game. The more options I have the better.

How do you mean? How many advancements are we talking about here?

I don't know, a lot. It takes a lot of advancements to reach a character with the same level of command training from the ICON system.

technically, it's a Xd10 system.

Yes, but the basic premise is there. The game isn't perfect I'll admit, but it's still a better dice system than ICON was and at least as good as CODA.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Both character wise and dice wise. With D20 you could have a multitude of Prestige Classes and a very wide range of numerical probabilities. To me, that makes for a better game. The more options I have the better.

CODA has prestige classes.

I don't know, a lot. It takes a lot of advancements to reach a character with the same level of command training from the ICON system.

"Command training"?